Summations Only

What's the diference between "deposition" and "piling up"? Bingo. Now divide the height of the geological column by miniscule to get the age of the geological column. How do you distinguish the geological column from the stuff on top of the geological column?

Well, that's exactly what geologists do. They compare what they see in the strata with what's happening today. How else can you do it? By imagining what might have happened?

What?It's minuscule in depth, it's minuscule in breadth, there is no comparison. Think of a river delta with its layering. Then think of the extent of the Coconino sandstone across four states, or the Redwall limestone which spans the whole continent. Think of their flat horizontality too while you're at it. Well, show me what stuff you have in mind where.But as a generalization, there is no comparison. I can't think of anything remotely similar to the Geologic Column anywhere except in the known Column from Precambrian to Holocene.Whatever is deposited on top is not a neat layer or it's not an incredibly extensive layer of a single sediment like those in the column or of separate layers of sediments. There is no comparison.The Geologic Column is a stack of separate sediments that is found in various pieces across the globe, of strata that can be identified as corresponding to strata elsewhere in the world, in the same position in the stack, with the same fossil contents if any and so on.There isn't even the whisper of a beginning of such a continuation of the Geo Column as far as I know anywhere on the planet; it's all bizarrely assumed from other forms of sedimentation that have absolutely no similarity to it.abe: if you say it's in a stage where you can't recognize the familiar form, that's a bit too easy don't you think? It's a cop-out. We have to wait a hundred million years to see it. No, it's not happening. It has stopped. We no longer have such extensive layering of the planet, we now have a bunch of piled up stuff that is never going to become a thick slab of a particular sediment turned to rock.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, that is what one has to do. I don't think they are doing that. I think they are assuming it rather than actually thinking about the comparison.

Sure they do.See, it is your beliefs about time that are wrong. There's plenty of time for both of those to build up additional layers, following the same methods as we see in the past.Go out to the southern tip of Hawaii and look at the lava flows. I saw some there a few years back that were several feet thick--and still warm. That volcano just added a little bit to the column whether you say yea or nay.

I say nay of course. It added some lava to the surface of the earth, it's pure fantasy that considers that to be an addition to the geologic column.Oh of course there's always TIME for whatever you want there to be time for. Only time can't solve this problem, the evidence is that the column has stopped, the time table has stopped, the evidence being wrong scale of current depositions, wrong location, lack of single sediment to a layer, not building on the existing column, all the rest of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You should be comparing sandstone with the Sahara Desert, not with a river delta, y'know, sand with sand? Yes, limestone deposited from tiny shells on an ocean bottom? Anything like the tiny shells being deposited on the ocean bottoms today? What's your point? I'm asking you how it's different.We see sand in the desert with burrows and trackways; we see sandstone with burrows and trackways. We see tiny shells depositd on the ocean floor; we see tiny shells in limestone. Where`s the vast difference you're claiming?

They're comparing sandstone with modern sand. They're comparing fossil trackways and burrows with modern trackways and burrows. What are you comparing?

I already said how it's different umpteen times. Scale of deposition both horizontal and vertical, single sediment, flatness or horizontality of layer, location above Holocene. I know people say the Sahara is supposed to be an example of a deposition we can expect to be the next layer of rock. That takes a lot more faith in the assumptions of the Old Earth than I could possibly muster and I don't see how anybody musters it. You are going to turn a sea of sand into a flat rock. Or time is. And that doesn't seem absurd to you. Oh well.You must also expect that a similar layer will form elsewhere on the planet that corresponds to this Saharian rock. Oh Wonderland.abe: Just out of curiosity I wonder what a core sample from under the Sahara sands shows.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Denying reality that everyone else can see is not a way to spread your beliefs.St. Augustine was right:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

​

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

And your posts have made you the poster child for his comment.

Augustine was thinking of the REAL sciences of observation, not the bogus sciences of the unobservable past that are just conjured up out of mental cobwebs.

And you've been shown how you're wrong umpteen times. Burrows and trackways in the sand, burrows and trackways in the rock - and those are only two of the comparisons that immediately come to mind. Where... is... the... difference? You've been shown photographs of rock formations that look exactly like modern sand dunes. Look it up.

No, I've shown YOU how YOU are wrong. You're just blowing hot air.There is no such thing as a flat rock that looks like a sand dune.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And yet you ignore the substance of the post.Let's try again: Burrows and trackways in the sand, burrows and trackways in the rock - and those are only two of the comparisons that immediately come to mind. Where is the difference?

No, he was thinking of Christians who make things up contrary to what the real evidence shows.Your posts are the perfect example of what he was talking about.